[PornoDoggy]

I would much rather have the US Marines fighting terrorists in the streets of Baghdad then the NYPD and thousands of innocent civilians in Manhatten.

What an unmitigated load of fucking moronic horseshit. We were attacked by terrorists, not invaded. The action in Baghdad, which is periphial at best to the action against alQaida, more that likely has driven more formerly undecided people into the hands of alQaida and not done a FUCKIKNG thing to make the people of Manhatan, San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Des Moines, or Bum-Fucking Alabama one BIT safer. Rhetorically it has a certain appeal to the brain dead and the incurably idiotic - but if you are stupid enough to believe it, then maybe asswipedude has a point about the danger you present at the ballot box.

HOWEVER, the broad lesson...

Maybe another lesson that should be learned from this is that politicians who lie to the people - whether it be about why they go to war or who is attacking them - ought to be very concerned for their jobs.

Iraq is now the center playing field for terrorists

I recognize that the Bush government wants us to believe that - but I have serious doubts. IMHO, a far more dangerous (and unfortunately, far more likely) turn of events is that we have unleashed very domestic forces within Iraq. So, sure, there may be alQaida forces at play in Iraq - but if you think they are all there, and if you think that the Iraqi excursion is making us any safer, then I fear you are seriously deluding yourself.

I think Bush has not been agressive enough, the problem is he cannot win with people like yourself. If he is not agressive nad prepaired he gets blamed for dropping the ball. Yet when he acts decisively with military action, the liberals cry we are hurting our standing in the world, blah blah blah.

Just so you know, I'm typing very slowly in the vain hope that you can keep up with me. I do not blame Bush for 9/11. I will also agree that he took decisive military action.

Attacking Iraq did not do one single thing to weaken alQaida. Attacking Iraq did nothing to make the United States safer. When the United States fought a two-front war the last time, we defered action against the initial aggressor (Japan) in order to confront a greater danger (Germany). We did not respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor by invading facist Spain. We did not respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor by invading the South American countries friendly to the Axis.

Decisive action is fine - but the decisive action should be related to the real threat.

We should be putting much more pressure - indirect and direct on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

Right ... let's just make those countries as stable as we've made Iraq.

BTW ... alQaida (remember alQaida - they're the nasty people who murdered all those New Yorkers you claim you're so concerned about) is operating from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and a host of other places - not Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia. So gee ... let's take some MORE decisive action, huh?



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 2 2004, 08:35 PM